Lyman v. Loomis
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Covenant broken. The plaintiff alleged in his declaration, that the defendant, by deed dated May 24,1822, conveyed to the plaintiff “ the following lots of land lying and being in Bethlehem — to wit, lot No. 33, in the 11th range, and lot No. 27, in the 1-lth range, containing one hundred acres each, being the same land deeded to James Chamberlain, junior, by Stephen Lane, February, 1801/’ and covenanted with the plaintiff that he, the said Joseph, was the lawful possessor…
Read the full summary
Covenant broken. The plaintiff alleged in his declaration, that the defendant, by deed dated May 24,1822, conveyed to the plaintiff “ the following lots of land lying and being in Bethlehem — to wit, lot No. 33, in the 11th range, and lot No. 27, in the 1-lth range, containing one hundred acres each, being the same land deeded to James Chamberlain, junior, by Stephen Lane, February, 1801/’ and covenanted with the plaintiff that he, the said Joseph, was the lawful possessor of the said lots, and that he had lawful authority to dispose of the said lots, when in fact he was not the lawful owner,…
1Opinion of the Court
By i!.e Court.
This is a very plain case. The role is, that if the description be sufficient to ascertain the land intended to be conveyed, the land will pass, although it does not agree with some of the particulars in the description. 4 Mass. Rep. 205 ; 6 Cowen, 717.
In the deed of the defendant there is enough to show, that the lots intended to be conveyed were lots in the gore, because there is a direct reference to Lane’s deed for a more particular description, and the lots described in Lane’s deed are in the gore. The circumstance, that the lots are described as in Bethlehem, must be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Drew v. DrewSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854
- Emerson v. WhiteSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854
- Webb v. StoneSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- Chadwick v. BadgerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1838